That is WAY different from "S6 to S9" so I am glad that I challenged that
statement. That kind of hyperbole ends to damage a process that is, for the
most part, working far better than we have had in years past, and if she or
others at the FCC were to receive a barrage of emails with anger over what was
a very false and misleading statement about FCC not considering S9 to be
harmful interference, this could impact the work that is being done on a number
of cases of interference. I am very familiar with the case in question, and
Smith was sent a video that showed S1 noise on the receiver S meter, which was
interpreted as, well, S1 noise. She probably would not have even drawn that
line in the sand but for the fact that it was demanded of her that she did, so
she determined that in this case, the evidence shown to her did not demonstrate
harmful interference. The interference may very well be louder at times, but
that is what was sent and when a demand was made that she determine w
hether the case was harmful interference as described by the rules, she
responded.
Solar Edge is still working on a better design, and we do have them committed
to try this in a few cases, but they are concentrating on cases that are not as
confrontational because those have a greater likelihood of success. We will
build on that success.
________________________________
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com> on behalf of
wx5l@charter.net <wx5l@charter.net>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 8:50 AM
To: rfi@contesting.com <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI System
Ed,
Please remove Ms. Rosenworcel from this conversation.
It was Laura Smith, FCC Special Council, that made the comments what she
considers harmful interference and that the FCC will not step in regarding
this issue.
Maybe Ms. Smith made that comment on her own so Ms. Rosenworcel was not
aware.
So in context:
(Quote)
I will provide an official response:
First, so long as Solar Edge continues to work with the ARRL towards finding
a technical solution to the issue, the FCC will not step in.
Second, a noise level of S1 (or even S3) does not rise to the level of
"harmful" and the only person who can make that determination is me and I
have made it.
Laura Smith
Laura L Smith, Esq. | Special Counsel | Spectrum Enforcement Division |
Enforcement Bureau | Federal Communications Commission | 717-338-2577
(Unquote)
It may not be until smarter people than me can rewrite Parts 15 and 18 to
handle the new digital age, led and grow lights, solar panels and the
countless other devices that radiate RFI before we see a reversal in this
trend.
That will be a long and complicated road that at the moment is not on the
agenda.
73,
Randy
WX5L
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 2:53 AM
To: k8cn@arrl.net <Mike.Carter@unh.edu>; wx5l@arrl.net <wx5l@charter.net>;
rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI System
Here is the list of the statements from the FCC Chair. I didn't see anything
in the titles that looked as if it might contain the statement that Randy
read, but maybe if he looks at the list, it will jog his memory. It would
be important to see that in context.
https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/jessica-rosenworcel#statements
<https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/jessica-rosenworcel#statements>
Jessica Rosenworcel | Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel believes
that the future belongs to the connected. She works to promote greater
opportunity, accessibility, and affordability in our communications services
in order to ensure that all Americans get a fair shot at 21st century
success.
www.fcc.gov<http://www.fcc.gov> <http://www.fcc.gov>
_____
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com
<mailto:rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com> > on behalf of Michael
Carter <Mike.Carter@unh.edu <mailto:Mike.Carter@unh.edu> >
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 3:09 PM
To: wx5l@arrl.net <mailto:wx5l@arrl.net> <wx5l@charter.net
<mailto:wx5l@charter.net> >; rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
<rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com> >
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI System
No flames, Randy - just a request for the source
of the statement attributed to Ms. Rosenworcel,
the FCC chairperson. I can't believe any FCC
senior appointee would make a qualitative or
quantitative assessment of interference potential/severity of any
unintentional RF emitter.
Thanks in advance, and 73,
Mike, K8CN
________________________________
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+mike.carter=unh.edu@contesting.com
<mailto:rfi-bounces+mike.carter=unh.edu@contesting.com> > on behalf of
wx5l@charter.net <mailto:wx5l@charter.net> <wx5l@charter.net
<mailto:wx5l@charter.net> >
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 2:56 PM
To: rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com> <rfi@contesting.com
<mailto:rfi@contesting.com> >
Subject: Re: [RFI] Another Solar Panel RFI System
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University System. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
There have been comments that the ARRL has the FCC's ear. Really do they?
Recently Jessica Rosenworcel , FCC chairwomen has made a statement about
issues with Solar Edge RFI and said that S-6 to S-9 is NOT harmful
interference. On what basis can she make that determination. Does she know
what an S unit is? Has she been advised from a technical support group to
make that comment?
The FCC's should not label harmful interference with an S-meters reference.
I would be confident to say of there would be s-6 interference to a fire
department, ambulance service or aircraft control tower that would not be
tolerated but as amateurs we must tolerate it in the eyes of the FCC.
Now let the flame throwers commence.
73,
Randy
WX5L
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.conte
sting.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frfi
<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.cont
esting.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frfi&data=05%7C01%7Cmike.carter%40unh.edu%7
C8c813307d8814269428308dae1322fcb%7Cd6241893512d46dc8d2bbe47e25f5666%7C0%7C0
%7C638069902910615128%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mRSPgf5cwCtZa3qur
Ak42EJotNF3K0v4Iemg6KGmM5I%3D&reserved=0>
&data=05%7C01%7Cmike.carter%40unh.edu%7C8c813307d8814269428308dae1322fcb%7Cd
6241893512d46dc8d2bbe47e25f5666%7C0%7C0%7C638069902910615128%7CUnknown%7CTWF
pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mRSPgf5cwCtZa3qurAk42EJotNF3K0v4Iemg6KGmM5I%3D&reserve
d=0
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|